si_get_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (API key), which is genuine value, but says nothing about read-only nature, failure behavior for unknown ids, or rate limits – though an output schema exists to cover the return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no waste, and the core action and identifier format are front-loaded ahead of the auth note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, the id format, and the credential needed. Only marginal gaps remain around error/not-found behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by supplying a concrete id example ('edanmdm-nmaahc_2012.36.4ab') that shows the expected format. It does not explain whether the id is a Smithsonian EDAN id versus some other key, so it is not fully compensating.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Smithsonian record by id') and gives a concrete example identifier, which implicitly separates it from the search siblings like si_search. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Needs SMITHSONIAN_API_KEY') but never states when to reach for this tool versus si_search or get_record. Usage is only implied by 'by id' – an agent with an identifier will infer it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.